Why do ATC sometimes change your squawk, when on a Eurocontrol IFR flight plan?

Im not so sure about “on the box” or auf der Box. I think “in” the box is better. Read back the assigned squawk by saying, “tail number and squawking xxxx”.

Shouldn’t that be “squak xxxx, tail number”?

Shouldn’t that be “squak xxxx, tail number”?

Actually, it’s “squawk xxxx, tail number/other identification” because airliners don’t use tail number

Unless of course you’re Lufthansa or Germanwings, in which case you reverse the order of callsign and readback that everyone else on the entire planet uses!

Unless of course you’re Lufthansa or Germanwings,…

That’s not true! And I am not connected to LH in the least. By ICAO definiton, one is supposed to say “Callsign – messgage”. Only LH and their daughters do it by the book, everybody else does it in the “wrong” order. Because we can’t remember the message long enough to say it after our familiar callsign, so we start with the difficult bit and do the easy one (callsign) last

But there is actually a reason why LH sticks to the rules here (and a very valid one too): The pilot monitoring (PM) operates the radio and the pilot flying (PF) sets the values. When they receive an altitude change for example “Lufthansa 5678 descend level 123” the PF will dial in 123 and the PM will read back to ATC the value from the alt. preselect window, thereby automatically double-checking that everything was understood by both crew members and set correctly. Starting the radio call with the callsign gives the PF the required time for dialling in the numbers.

Actually, what you say is the LH procedure is not correct according to ICAO. A correct readback should end with the callsign.

ICAO Annex 10, para. 5.2.1.9.2.2: “An aircraft station should acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the readback by its radio call sign.”

There is an example of a readback: “CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE”

A correct readback should end with the callsign.

Correct.

ICAO Annex 10, para. 5.2.1.9.2.2:

In this case, Germany is obviously not ICAO compliant. The German Radiotelephony Manual (NFL I 278/07) says:

“Das Rufzeichen ist grundsätzlich am Beginn der Meldung zu übermitteln. Eine direkte Antwort auf eine Meldung kann durch das Rufzeichen beendet werden”

(The callsign has to be transmitted at the beginning of a message. A direct answer to a message may be terminated by the callsign).
Which means: Everybody – LH and everybody else – is doing it in the corrrect fashion

Obviously not.

The Swedish Radiotelephony regulations include essentially a translation of my quote from Annex 10 above.

FWIW, the Oxford Aviation Academy ATPL manual, vol. 14 (Communications) states – in boldface even – “In a readback the last thing you say is your callsign.”